Episcopal Bishop Finds Parallel Province “Troublesome”
The following is clipped from the bishop’s page at Alabama’s diocesan website.
|
To my mind this is a very troublesome idea. One of the distinguishing aspects of the Anglican Communion as it has historically existed has been gracious unity in the midst of diversity. By the grace of God we have been able to embrace a spectrum of theological views and ministries in one holy fellowship centered in God the Holy Trinity, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Common Prayer. To be sure there are corporate boundaries to the spectrum, such as the theology and worship of the Prayer Book. But within provinces we have contained a diversity of dioceses, with differing contexts and traditions. Within dioceses we have contained a healthy variety of parishes, with a diversity of liturgical customs and theological emphasis. Within parishes we have contained “all sorts and conditions” of people. The idea of parallel provinces of the Communion sharing the same geography threatens this healthy variety. I believe that it would change Anglican polity at its core. To my knowledge, there never been an officially recognized parallel provincial jurisdiction. We have been trenchantly faithful to the teaching of the Council of Nicaea that dioceses must have geographical integrity with one bishop ordinary for each diocese. To depart from this ancient practice would badly damage the catholicity of this church. It would undermine the scriptural teaching that “there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all.” It would separate what God has joined together in this remarkable tradition of Anglican Christianity. |
It is to the above excerpt that I respond briefly. With all due respect, the logic lacks intellectual integrity and contains some hubris. The Bishop seems to have forgotten that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox find the Anglican Communion itself a rogue province operating within in their rightly constituted geographical boundaries. If parallel provinces are the offense, damage to catholicity has already been done and Anglicans are the offenders. Also, we have peacefully coexisted for decades if not centuries with the Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians, all operating as Christian “provinces” within the same geographical boundaries. The Bishop seems to accept multiple overlapping jurisdictions elsewhere (indeed everywhere) but is threatened by the one that might be a reasonable alternative to his flock. He therefore cites polity and church history in hopes of preventing a second Anglican province from becoming a reality (which he cannot) and preventing the new province from becoming a viable alternative for his people (which he may if his people remain unaware of why the new province exist). No bishop has a God ordained right to territory which is exclusively his and if bishops did, this one would have to repent of trespassing upon the territory of those who have a historical priority exceeding his.
Perhaps it is oversight or perhaps naiveté but the Bishop of Alabama misreads the founders of the new province. They do not mean for the new province to be a parallel province. They mean for it to become the only officially sanctioned Anglican province in the United States. Why? Because they consider the present one known as ECUSA to be apostate, having abandoned the faith once delivered to the Apostles!
In his recent open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola wrote:
“In our meeting we recommended that you initiate a “professionally mediated conversation which engages all parties at the earliest opportunity.” It now seems increasingly clear that without a radical change of behavior on the part of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada the only possible outcome of such a process is acknowledgement of a bitter truth that the differences in the words of (Scottish Primus) Archbishop Idris Jones are “irreconcilable”.
At the recent Primate meeting in Egypt, Archbishop Akinola had with him a well documented report of the American Anglican Council which includes this assessment of the American church:
“Episcopal Church leaders have denied Jesus as the only way to the Father, denied the divinity and uniqueness of Jesus Christ, denied the Resurrection, denied heaven and hell, denied salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ, denied the authority of Scripture, denied the Creeds and denied biblical standards for human sexuality.”
It seems to me that thinking Anglicans will necessarily choose, passively by acceptance or actively by parting ways. The choice? To be trenchantly faithful to “gracious unity in the midst of diversity” which the Bishop maintains is our history and the age old geographical boundaries OR demand that their church uphold the faith once delivered and handed down throughout the ages. I think it not too much to say the choice is finally between allegiance to a waning institution and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
February 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Those serious about a relationship with Jesus Christ are tired of “man” marking Gods territory and claiming it as their own. ECUSA is no longer about Jesus and His message but rather making a political statement for power and personal beliefs.